how do religious people prove religion

[Frank Merton]

I gave up a long time ago wondering what aspects of the traditional Buddha story are history and which are not. The whole thing is riddled with clearly mythological elements, so we may as well just assume the entire thing is a myth and go from there.

I think Christians would be better off doing much the same. The stories as we have them are not credible as history and not supportable from outside sources.

Does that mean one abandons Buddhism or Christianity? I think it means one abandons some aspects of these traditions and becomes agnostic about other aspects, but that the traditions and the art and the ritual and the moral and humane teachings are still valuable and the stories, while not necessarily (or even probably) historical are still valuable cultural motifs and helpful if approached openly.

[J. K.]

One believes on the basis of faith alone. At least, that's what religious teachers say. Those who need proof (or even evidence) lack faith.

For me, my "faith" is based on evidence: the evidence that I have seen of God working in my life. The "faith without evidence" is more along of the lines of things that I accept even thought I don't understand them. I can't say that I understand everything about Christianity, but that doesn't stop me from believing.

[Doug1029]

[/size]

For me, my "faith" is based on evidence: the evidence that I have seen of God working in my life. The "faith without evidence" is more along of the lines of things that I accept even thought I don't understand them. I can't say that I understand everything about Christianity, but that doesn't stop me from believing.

It's only evidence if two independent observers can agree that it is. So who is your other observer and what did he/she observe?

For that matter: what did YOU observe?

Doug

Edited May 8, 2013 by Doug1029

[Frank Merton]

I hate to say this, but I think faith is an excuse, and a weak excuse at that, for believing indoctrination and not thinking independently. Buddhism has to my knowledge never taught such a thing, but to always go the way one's mind says to go, not one's heart or one's desires.

[Doug1029]

I think you're missing the point, it was an example of an unsubstantiated discovery, like the ark being found.

But the ark HAS been found. Napoleon reported in his diary that he had seen it. What did he see?

Mt. Ararat is a volcano with a basalt dome covering its top and a glacier on top of that. It is 16,854 feet high with its top in permanent snow and ice. Have you ever climbed anything that high? Every step is an agony; you can't catch your breath and the environment saps your will to continue. Another 200 feet higher is the "death zone," a region that you MUST leave after a day or two or the shortage of breathable oxygen will kill you.

Some of that basalt cap is broken into large boat-shaped pieces, some of which are gradually being uncovered by global warming. Those pieces are clearly visible from four miles away. That's what Napoleon saw. But after the Olympian effort needed to reach the viewpoint, he had nothing left with which to travel the other four miles. He gave up and went down. He saw the "Ark," or what he took to be the Ark, from a distance of several miles and never went any closer. And that's the story behind nearly every other person who ever "saw" the Ark.

I believe it was Ron Wyatt who recovered a 400-year-old piece of wood and tried to say it was from the Ark, conveniently forgetting that the snow-line was a couple hundred feet higher during the Medieval Warm Period. Also forgetting that Mt. Ararat is in a military security zone and visitors these days are in serious danger of being shot.

Doug

Edited May 8, 2013 by Doug1029

[freetoroam]

Listen to the millions of witnesses over thousands of years who have given testimony to God, Jesus, the angels and saints in heaven. They also found the Ark and the Egyptian chariots under the Red Sea.

They believe in the teachings of a book, not quite the same as being a witness.

And this book and its teachings has been changed over the years to suit peoples different wants of belief.

Beliefs from reading what is written in a book can not be proved, but if it makes them feel better, then there`s nothing wrong with that.

If religious people want to believe in the existence of a god or that Jesus (aka numerous other names) was the messiah, then thats fine as long as they do not try to convince me it is the absolute truth with the only "proof" to back it up is a novel, but I respect they want to believe in it. Each to his own.

[J. K.]

It's only evidence if two independent observers can agree that it is. So who is your other observer and what did he/she observe?

For that matter: what did YOU observe?

Doug

You might want to rephrase that slightly. If I am walking through the woods and see some red and yellow leaves, I can safely make the assumption that fall is on the way; I don’t need independent verification.

Here is an example of something that has happened more than once, on the average of two or three times a year.

Sometime during the day, when I’m performing other activities, a specific Bible passage will come to mind. Later that day or the next day, I come in contact with another Christian who shares a problem with me. The passage I was given is a passage that addresses that particular problem and provides an answer.

I can only think of two ways that I receive this type of information. It is either from God, or I am precognitive-psychic. I’m sure that others will have their own interpretations.

[Doug1029]

Listen to the millions of witnesses over thousands of years who have given testimony to God, Jesus, the angels and saints in heaven. They also found the Ark and the Egyptian chariots under the Red Sea.

If there were ever any witnesses to Jesus, they didn't leave us any documentation. No ancient writer that we now know of ever said anything like: "I had breakfast with Jesus," or "I saw him on the Cross." Not even St. Paul, who was probably mythical anyway, made that claim. And he supposedly lived in Jerusalem when Jesus was executed, yet he never even mentioned it in his writings (that is, if the Pauline letters are really the product of his hand).

The very first documentation of any of the Gospels in history is from the writings of Theophilus of Antioch who said he had seen the Gospel of John. Theophilus died in 180 AD, so we know it existed before then. The next mention of a Gospel is Irenaeus' mention of Matthew in Book I of Against Heresies, written in about 180 AD. Irenaeus didn't say it was a gospel or a holy writing or any such thing, but it is reasonable to assume he meant the modern Gospel of Matthew because in Book III, written about 186 AD, he mentions all four gospels by name. And that's over 150 years after Jesus' death.

The very first mention of St. Paul is an indirect one. Tertullian (early third century) wrote that Marcion (144 AD) wrote a Bible (the very first Christian Bible) that included some of St. Paul's letters, along with a redacted version of the Gospel of Luke. More-recent scholars have suggested that Luke is actually a redacted version of Marcion's Bible. This is supported by Luke's dedication to "Most excellent Theophilus (Patriarch of Antioch from about 169 to 180 AD)" and by a reference in the text to "most excellent Felix (appointed governor of Egypt in September 151 AD)." Acts likewise has a reference to "most excellent Theophilus" and is supposedly written by the same author as Luke. I think it very telling that St. Paul did not write of the virgin birth or any of Jesus' miracles or express any knowledge of his execution.

Papias alone among ancient writers refers to having "the words of John ringing in my ears." The problem is that we don't know if there really was a person named Papias or when he might have written this. Supposedly, he was the Bishop of Hierapolis, but he is not mentioned by contemporary writers; he has no provenance. Fragments of his writings appear in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (or did Papias quote from those gospels?). The other problem is that his writings can't be dated because they have no references to datable events or people. All this renders Papias of little value in studying the Bible.

In short, there are and as far as anybody can demonstrate, never were, any witnesses to Jesus, Mary, the disciples or Paul.

For the Ark, see my post above. As for Egyptian chariots: ever hear of shipworms? They eat submerged wood. They can demolish a wooden ship in a few years. A chariot would be a piece of cake - and Egyptian chariots were wooden. The source of your information is Ron Wyatt, a "researcher" who believes that 80-year olds can travel over 100 miles through the desert in less than a week when modern Israeli soldiers can't do that on established roads and the crew of the Lady Be Good couldn't do it when they had to or die (They died of thirst, except one whose parachute didn't open.). And Wyatt never brought back any evidence to support any of his claims: no rock from Gebel el Lawz - no "chariot wheels" from the Red Sea. No nothing that anybody might use to prove him wrong (or prove that he knew what he was doing, either).

Not only that, the crossing site was at what is now known as El Kubrit on the banks of the Suez Canal (There's an airport at the site where "Moses" camped.). When they dredged the channel for the canal any archeological evidence would have been piled up to make a base for the service road.

In short, some of the Bible stories are probably based on events that really happened, but many are legends, myths and outright lies. A serious Bible student ought to have some idea which is which.

Doug

Edited May 8, 2013 by Doug1029

[freetoroam]

You might want to rephrase that slightly. If I am walking through the woods and see some red and yellow leaves, I can safely make the assumption that fall is on the way; I don’t need independent verification.

Here is an example of something that has happened more than once, on the average of two or three times a year.

Sometime during the day, when I’m performing other activities, a specific Bible passage will come to mind. Later that day or the next day, I come in contact with another Christian who shares a problem with me. The passage I was given is a passage that addresses that particular problem and provides an answer.

I can only think of two ways that I receive this type of information. It is either from God, or I am precognitive-psychic. I’m sure that others will have their own interpretations.

You have just answered where you got the "answer" from.....from the book called the Bible, not god or being a precognitive psychic.

Give your answer from the bible to a non christian or a person of another religion, and you may find that the problem is not solved with your christian answer.

Because you are both Christians and have both read and believe in the same book, then of course you will both agree the answer to the problem from the bible is correct.

[Doug1029]

You might want to rephrase that slightly. If I am walking through the woods and see some red and yellow leaves, I can safely make the assumption that fall is on the way; I don’t need independent verification.

Bad choice for an example. I am an ex-forester. Part of my duties included forest pathology. Lots of things cause yellowing, from a shortage of nitrogen in the soil to fall temps, even drought conditions can do it. A tree salvages nutrients from a dying leaf. That's what does it. Spider mites can cause a leaf to turn red and some leaves are reddish throughout the year (like Schwedler maples, for example).

Here is an example of something that has happened more than once, on the average of two or three times a year.

Sometime during the day, when I’m performing other activities, a specific Bible passage will come to mind. Later that day or the next day, I come in contact with another Christian who shares a problem with me. The passage I was given is a passage that addresses that particular problem and provides an answer.

I can only think of two ways that I receive this type of information. It is either from God, or I am precognitive-psychic. I’m sure that others will have their own interpretations.

How many times did you think of a verse that you never had any further use for?

Is this a self-fulfilling prophecy in that you are looking for an application for your verse, so you find one?

Have you and/or your friend observed something in common that triggers the same response?

Too many explanations is about the same as no explanation. Sorry. Doesn't fly.

Doug

[J. K.]

You have just answered where you got the "answer" from.....from the book called the Bible, not god or being a precognitive psychic.

If I were thinking about the entire Bible, every verse, all the time, that might be true. However, I'm talking about a specific verse or paragraph popping into my mind, unrelated to anything that I'm currently doing or thinking about.

Give your answer from the bible to a non christian or a person of another religion, and you may find that the problem is not solved with your christian answer.

I didn't say that it would be applicable in that situation, but that comment has nothing to do with the "evidence" you asked about.

Because you are both Christians and have both read and believe in the same book, then of course you will both agree the answer to the problem from the bible is correct.

That is true, but that has nothing to do with how I thought of the Scripture beforehand.

Bad choice for an example. I am an ex-forester. Part of my duties included forest pathology. Lots of things cause yellowing, from a shortage of nitrogen in the soil to fall temps, even drought conditions can do it. A tree salvages nutrients from a dying leaf. That's what does it. Spider mites can cause a leaf to turn red and some leaves are reddish throughout the year (like Schwedler maples, for example).

To use your own example, you and an "independent observer" would have had to witness the spider mite doing its damage before you could say that. I think you know what I mean. We make conclusions all the time based upon our observations of past occurrences. If you saw a tree lying horizontally on the ground ... by yourself ... you would simply think that it fell.

How many times did you think of a verse that you never had any further use for?

I haven't tried counting those occurrences either. I'm sure there are some random occurrences, but there are also occurrences which were triggered by something I saw or heard. Either way, that doesn't negate the fact that the "applicable" references occurred.

Is this a self-fulfilling prophecy in that you are looking for an application for your verse, so you find one?

You may think that if you wish. But no, I don't try to find an application; I don't initiate the contact with that person

Have you and/or your friend observed something in common that triggers the same response?

Nope, no commonality of trigger, simply a chance meeting.

[danielost]

If you want proof of god I have it. Three substances. 1 water, 2 salt, 3 ice.

Water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen, which makes rocket fuel.

Salt is made of sodium, which blows up in water and clorine, a poison.

Ice is the only solid element that floats in its liquid form. If it didn't all lakes and rivers would freeze solid in winter, killing what ever life was in it.

[Lilly]

If you want proof of god I have it. Three substances. 1 water, 2 salt, 3 ice.

Water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen, which makes rocket fuel.

Salt is made of sodium, which blows up in water and clorine, a poison.

Ice is the only solid element that floats in its liquid form. If it didn't all lakes and rivers would freeze solid in winter, killing what ever life was in it.

I must be missing something in this little chemistry lesson. How does any of this prove the existence of God?

[Doug1029]

To use your own example, you and an "independent observer" would have had to witness the spider mite doing its damage before you could say that. I think you know what I mean. We make conclusions all the time based upon our observations of past occurrences. If you saw a tree lying horizontally on the ground ... by yourself ... you would simply think that it fell.

The spider mite example is found in textbooks of forest pathology and has been observed many times by independent observers. My observations aren't really needed.

Put this under your list of strange coincidents, like thinking of a Bible verse applicable to your friend: Just before I opened this page to reply, I wrote (This is copy-and-pasted from the other document):

Few trees even survived serious bending or uprooting and those that did had very little commercial value or potential for future growth.

Just this minute! I specifically had in mind a tree that had been flattened in an ice storm and buried by debris, but nine years later was still alive. Same thing as your example, but without the Bible verse.

Doug

Edited May 8, 2013 by Doug1029

[J. K.]

The spider mite example is found in textbooks of forest pathology and has been observed many times by independent observers. My observations aren't really needed.

So there are writings based on past observations on which you rely; Christianity has those, too.

Put this under your list of strange coincidents, like thinking of a Bible verse applicable to your friend: Just before I opened this page to reply, I wrote (This is copy-and-pasted from the other document):

Few trees even survived serious bending or uprooting and those that did had very little commercial value or potential for future growth.

Just this minute! I specifically had in mind a tree that had been flattened in an ice storm and buried by debris, but nine years later was still alive. Same thing as your example, but without the Bible verse.

Doug

I could just as easily suggest that the thought was planted in your mind by God, as a demonstration.

[Doug1029]

[/font][/size]

So there are writings based on past observations on which you rely; Christianity has those, too.

I guess this thread is about how religious people prove religion. If by that is meant to themselves, I guess any old method will do, as long as you have faith in it.

But if is meant proof to others, then we are facing more stringent standards. Just which past observations does Christianity use to validate itself to others? I have been reviewing the ancient writings in an attempt to do exactly that and the best that I can produce is that Christianity is, essentially, an urban legend that grew up during the second century between the beginning of the Bar Kochba Rebellion in 132AD and the death of Theophilus of Antioch in 180AD. It incorporates a few historical events from the first century. The Jesus it venerates may or may not have been a real person, but is probably a composite of several people who really lived, one of whom was actually crucified. The story survived from the early first century into the second by way of the rabbinical school established by Akiva ben Joseph. I believe his followers were the ones who perpetuated the story; although, ben Joseph would probably not have approved. St. Paul may or may not have been a real person, but he sounds an awful lot like a legend based on Apollonius of Tyana. The letters of St. Paul show an evolution of thought with greater complexity and more of the fantastic accumulating around the story as it grew. Clement of Rome, writing in about 96 AD, tells a story of the woman who poured oil on Jesus, but he gives different details to the story told in the gospels, demonstrating that he has a different source. The gospels of Matthew and Mark are unknown to Aristides of Athens, writing in 125 AD, but well known to Ireneus writing in 186 AD. The Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts refer to people who lived between 151 AD and 180AD.

There is a lot more to this than that. Details from Mark and Matthew point to the Temple of Jupiter on Temple Mount and as much as name the Roman Tenth Legion which built that temple in 131AD.

The list of details that puts the writing of the Jesus story in the mid-second century just keeps getting longer. For me, the most important question is: where does all this fit into history? The mid-second century produces the fewest conflicts and is thus, the best estimate.

I could just as easily suggest that the thought was planted in your mind by God, as a demonstration.

I have been working on that paper for months. The observations were made back in 2009. God must have placed it there a long time ago just for me to dig it up when you came along.

And that brings up another question: if you looked up a Bible verse and four years later you found a use for it, does that somehow prove your god? Or does it simply mean that if you wait long enough anything can happen?

That's what I call chance.

Doug

[danielost]

I must be missing something in this little chemistry lesson. How does any of this prove the existence of God?

How else did a couple of high explosives, and a poison become necassary for life. I know it was an accident, right.

By the way I made a small mistake. Water is a compound not an element. Sorry.

Edited May 8, 2013 by danielost

[+Liquid Gardens]

If I were thinking about the entire Bible, every verse, all the time, that might be true. However, I'm talking about a specific verse or paragraph popping into my mind, unrelated to anything that I'm currently doing or thinking about.

I haven't tried counting those occurrences either. I'm sure there are some random occurrences, but there are also occurrences which were triggered by something I saw or heard. Either way, that doesn't negate the fact that the "applicable" references occurred.

Nope, no commonality of trigger, simply a chance meeting.

I think there are several confounding factors to your theory here that God is behind verses popping into your mind. What percentage of the entire Bible is actually popping into your head, aren't they the most notable and famous verses? It seems that a decent amount of that subset of famous verses are fairly general and have wide applicability; I can think of tons of situations that the Golden Rule applies to, although that is obviously on the very general end of the spectrum. I assume you're not getting verses like Ruth 1:20 - " “Don’t call me Naomi,” she told them. “Call me Mara because the Almighty has made my life very bitter." "; I'd probably be pretty impressed if you were just later in the same room with a Naomi and Mara in it simultaneously.

It is important as noted to keep track of how many times verses come into your mind and don't get applied. If you have verses pop into your brain a couple times a week and you only apply them a few times a year and allow up to a day or so to 'apply' it to a situation, it may not be so unlikely at all. How many 'situations' you later encounter to which a verse could be applied should also be noted, the more there are the less surprising you can apply the verse.

And if I'm reading you right, it is you that is judging this applicability, which doesn't make it too objective. What might be a good test when this happens again is talk to a knowledgable Christian friend and tell them of the situation you encountered and ask them what they think the most applicable verse in the Bible is in response to that situation, without first saying what popped into your head, and see if it's the same as the one that came to you before the fact. If it is not the same, see if you agree that your friend's is a more applicable verse (obviously don't cheat and lend extra 'applicability' to the verse that came to you just because you suspect it may have come from God/precognition, that's what's being tested) and if you do, it would seem to imply that you are the one who is doing the applying, not God. If you say that even if your friend's is better that yours still counts because it also applies pretty well, then it becomes more unremarkable because you now have 'x' number of verses that could have popped into your head that you could apply to that situation, which also lowers the unlikelihood that it is God or you are psychic. If your friends agree with you that you are consistently getting the most applicable verse that would seem to help your possible theory.

Which honestly is not to burst any bubbles. Even if God is not communicating with you in this direct way, I would think it a good thing for a Christian to be so familiar with the Bible that verses pop in your head and that you look for and can see their application in the world.

[conspiracy buff]

Whether you believe in religion or science, either way it is taken on faith. Either you have faith in God or faith in science and research. Every person has to decide what is the best fit for them. My personal belief is that this Universe and all of creation is too exact to have been happenstance based on the theory of evolution or the "Big Bang theory". My analogy is quite simple, a light is not turned on without someone flipping the switch. In much the same way, I do not believe that everything came into being without there being an intelligent and supreme God to flip the switch. Everything else is too random and not explainable without there being a creator. Nothing else seems plausible enough to explain everything without creationism. Science cannot disprove God and religion cannot prove God. That is the core struggle that has always existed and that will never change. It's a matter of which viewpoint you chose to take and which belief system you support. It's that simple, really.

[Rlyeh]

How else did a couple of high explosives, and a poison become necassary for life. I know it was an accident, right.

By the way I made a small mistake. Water is a compound not an element. Sorry.

Because water is common? Still not seeing what this has to do with God.

[Frank Merton]

If there were ever any witnesses to Jesus, they didn't leave us any documentation. No ancient writer that we now know of ever said anything like: "I had breakfast with Jesus," or "I saw him on the Cross." Not even St. Paul, who was probably mythical anyway, made that claim. And he supposedly lived in Jerusalem when Jesus was executed, yet he never even mentioned it in his writings (that is, if the Pauline letters are really the product of his hand).

The very first documentation of any of the Gospels in history is from the writings of Theophilus of Antioch who said he had seen the Gospel of John. Theophilus died in 180 AD, so we know it existed before then. The next mention of a Gospel is Irenaeus' mention of Matthew in Book I of Against Heresies, written in about 180 AD. Irenaeus didn't say it was a gospel or a holy writing or any such thing, but it is reasonable to assume he meant the modern Gospel of Matthew because in Book III, written about 186 AD, he mentions all four gospels by name. And that's over 150 years after Jesus' death.

The very first mention of St. Paul is an indirect one. Tertullian (early third century) wrote that Marcion (144 AD) wrote a Bible (the very first Christian Bible) that included some of St. Paul's letters, along with a redacted version of the Gospel of Luke. More-recent scholars have suggested that Luke is actually a redacted version of Marcion's Bible. This is supported by Luke's dedication to "Most excellent Theophilus (Patriarch of Antioch from about 169 to 180 AD)" and by a reference in the text to "most excellent Felix (appointed governor of Egypt in September 151 AD)." Acts likewise has a reference to "most excellent Theophilus" and is supposedly written by the same author as Luke. I think it very telling that St. Paul did not write of the virgin birth or any of Jesus' miracles or express any knowledge of his execution.

Papias alone among ancient writers refers to having "the words of John ringing in my ears." The problem is that we don't know if there really was a person named Papias or when he might have written this. Supposedly, he was the Bishop of Hierapolis, but he is not mentioned by contemporary writers; he has no provenance. Fragments of his writings appear in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (or did Papias quote from those gospels?). The other problem is that his writings can't be dated because they have no references to datable events or people. All this renders Papias of little value in studying the Bible.

In short, there are and as far as anybody can demonstrate, never were, any witnesses to Jesus, Mary, the disciples or Paul.

For the Ark, see my post above. As for Egyptian chariots: ever hear of shipworms? They eat submerged wood. They can demolish a wooden ship in a few years. A chariot would be a piece of cake - and Egyptian chariots were wooden. The source of your information is Ron Wyatt, a "researcher" who believes that 80-year olds can travel over 100 miles through the desert in less than a week when modern Israeli soldiers can't do that on established roads and the crew of the Lady Be Good couldn't do it when they had to or die (They died of thirst, except one whose parachute didn't open.). And Wyatt never brought back any evidence to support any of his claims: no rock from Gebel el Lawz - no "chariot wheels" from the Red Sea. No nothing that anybody might use to prove him wrong (or prove that he knew what he was doing, either).

Not only that, the crossing site was at what is now known as El Kubrit on the banks of the Suez Canal (There's an airport at the site where "Moses" camped.). When they dredged the channel for the canal any archeological evidence would have been piled up to make a base for the service road.

In short, some of the Bible stories are probably based on events that really happened, but many are legends, myths and outright lies. A serious Bible student ought to have some idea which is which.

Doug

Thanks for that; I have stored it away for future refrence; its something every Christian should be aware of but Christian ministers never seem to mention.

[+Paranoid Android]

Thanks for that; I have stored it away for future refrence; its something every Christian should be aware of but Christian ministers never seem to mention.

It's also fair to note that Doug's research is only one path the scholar can take to arrive at dating the New Testament. I'm no historian, so I cannot speak for why they do what they do, but most historians and scholars, regardless of their religious persuasion, date the gospels much earlier than Doug does. Mark, they surmise, dates to circa 70 AD. Matthew and Luke to circa 80-100 AD, and John to circa 90-125 AD. In contrast, Doug generally presents a mid-2nd Century dating. I'm not disrespecting his research, I find his views fascinating. But without being a scholar myself, I prefer to rely on the information of the scholarly consensus. I have to think that if the scholarly community is pretty much agreed upon a mostly 1st Century dating (with possible early 2nd Century for John) then they are probably better qualified to judge a dating than I am, and I defer to their years of research and experience.

[Frank Merton]

I don't think Doug was talking about when they have been actually written but instead the earliest mentions we have of their existence. It seems to me this is two different questions.

I think the earlier dates are often those of liberal Christians, who tend to give the texts every possible benefit of the doubt, and so date them at the earliest possible date based on events the texts actually mention (it being assumed that they could not be before them). Very few people without a Christian background are going to even enter this field, which of course makes any assertion about what the majority of "scholars" in the field think somewhat suspect.

I noticed his mention that the letters of Paul seem to have no knowledge of the execution of Jesus. This seems incredibly strange and puts the entire story into what I would say is serious doubt.

[+Paranoid Android]

I don't think Doug was talking about when they have been actually written but instead the earliest mentions we have of their existence. It seems to me this is two different questions.

True, I do seem to remember reading Doug in the past thus suggest a likely dating based on these dates.

I think the earlier dates are often those of liberal Christians, who tend to give the texts every possible benefit of the doubt

Actually, the liberal Christians do their best to push dates back even further than what I suggested - the dates I provided represent mainstream consensus. Extreme liberalism suggests Matthew was completed by 48 AD. Extreme liberalism suggests Mark was finished by 60 AD, followed very shortly by Luke. John was written no later than 100 AD. These represent extreme liberalism, though.

, and so date them at the earliest possible date based on events the texts actually mention (it being assumed that they could not be before them). Very few people without a Christian background are going to even enter this field, which of course makes any assertion about what the majority of "scholars" in the field think somewhat suspect.

The field of study in Ancient History dealing with Christianity is much larger than I think you may realise. In general, authors who release material on ancient Christian history fit into three broad categories. On the left side, you have what you may call the extreme sceptics, who mostly write for the purpose of debunking idea and arguing against Christianity. On the other side of this would be the apologetics crowd. They have been convinced of the 100% truth of the Bible and therefore devote their time to proving that belief, often specifically and directly arguing against the extreme liberalism on the other side. Both the sceptic and the apologist often the scholars that make the headlines because of their equally extreme approaches. They're the ones we see in the "Religion" section of your local bookshop.

But this is not the be-all and end-all of religious scholarship, and in fact these are actually the minority of authors. To quote John Dickson's "The Christ Files":

Between these two margins is what you might call the mainstream or middle scholarship. This is where the vast majority of professional scholars are to be found. Mainstream scholars rarely hit the headlines or the shelves of popular bookstores but their work appears regularly in the hundred or so major peer review journals dedicated to the subject area....

... On the whole, mainstream scholars have little interest in debunking or defending Christianity; they are neither staunch sceptics nor devout apologists. They just get on with the business of analysing the New Testament and related material in the way historians treat any other comparable historical source from the period: whether Ceasar, Seneca or Tacitus on the Latin side, or Plutarch, Epictetus or Lucian on the Greek. Some of the most important names/works in the large scholarly middle include the following:

Follow THIS LINK to the Google-Books I'm quoting this from - the last 2-3 pages of the preview include a long list of scholars

The point I'm aiming at is the argument that New Testament historians are predisposed to Christianity and therefore are already suspect sources. The extreme liberal and apolgetics scholar do seem to fall into this trap, where they exploit every loophole in argument and present it as proof of their side of the debate. John Dickson, later in the book I quoted (but not in the Google preview), states the following:

My feelings about the sceptical scholarship will be obvious already. I think the best that can be said for it is that it puts Jesus in the headlines every now and then - even if it is as the "gay" messiah or the misunderstood husband of Mary Magdalene.

It may surprise some readers, particularly those in church circles, to learn that I feel only slightly better about apologetic forms of scholarship. While I share the spiritual perspective of many Christian apologists (I too wish to highlight the significance of Christ), on historical questions I feel less affinity. It seems to me tht for all the benefits they bring (in critiquing sceptical scholars and building the confidence of Christians) apologetic scholars ten to overstate their historical case. They tend ot exploit all of the possible arguments for a "biblical Jesus" and present them to the public as proof positive. Sceptical scholars develop the nay-saying case in the same way. Hence, while I am sympathetic to the aims of Christian apologists, I have drawn almost nothing from them in the writing of this book, preferring instead to lean on the scholarly mainstream.

Or in other words, the mainstream middle of Christian scholarship, which includes people of all faiths (not just Christians) are much more balanced than it may appear. Their personal beliefs don't get in the way. They're just there to research the texts the way they would research any ancient text.

I noticed his mention that the letters of Paul seem to have no knowledge of the execution of Jesus. This seems incredibly strange and puts the entire story into what I would say is serious doubt.

Perhaps because Paul was focused far more on the death and resurrection of Jesus. Which is more important to Christianity, do you suppose - that Jesus was executed by Romans, or that Jesus died and was resurrected three days later? Perhaps it is more helpful to find out what Paul DOES say about the historical Jesus? After all, Paul did note the following:

1- Jesus' descent from King David

2- The name an status of Jesus' brother (James)

3- Jesus' instructions to missionaries

4- Jesus' teachings about marriage, love and the treatment of enemies

5- Jesus' last supper

6- Jesus' betrayal

7- Jesus' execution and burial

8- Jesus' resurrection from the dead

9- Jesus' post-death appearances to eyewitnesses (including to Paul)

10- Jesus' status as the Messiah-Christ

Of special interest to scholars is a passage in one of Paul's letters in which he quotes the earliest known summary (or creed) of Christian belief:

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance:

that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.

After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the bothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born"

~ 1 Corinthians15:3-8

In the opinion of most mainstream scholars the indented words above come from a fixed narrative-summary of Christ's death and resurrection compsed sometime before AD35, within just a few years of the events themselves.

~ Source - same as above, The Christ Files

You may have noticed I've quoted this book several times in this post, and I must say it is a terrific book for anyone interested in understanding how historians begin to approach New Testament scholarship. I'd recommend you get a copy of this book, if you can. I own two copies. I keep one on my bookshelf for personal reference, and the other I routinely lend out to anyone who is interested in borrowing it. Anyway, I'll leave it there

~ Regards,

[danielost]

Because water is common? Still not seeing what this has to do with God.

No, water is not common few heavenly bodies in our system has water. It is uncommon.